POKHRAJBHAI SOHANBHAI CHANDEL Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE SURAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner-detenu has challenged the legality and validity of the order of detention, dated 7-9-1990 passed by the District Magistrate, Surat, under the provisions of the Prevention of Blackmarketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980.

(2.) The petitioner is a licence-holder of a Fair Price Shop and is detained on 9-9-1990 in pursuance of the order of detention dated 7-9-1990, passed by the District Magistrate, Surat, as aforesaid. The allegations are that the activities of the petitioner are prejudicial to the maintenance of supply of essential commodities. It is alleged in the grounds of detention that the petitioner sold the quota of Wheat of Fair Price Shop in the open market and the same is sold to a Flour Mills, viz. Dilip Enterprise, Navsari on higher rates.

(3.) Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that it is imperative that the detaining authority must serve the grounds of detention which praying to quash and set aside the order of detention dated 7-91990. (1) 1989 Supp. (2) SCC 155. include also all the relevant documents which had been considered in forming the subjective satisfaction by the detaining authority before making the order of detention. He submitted that the detenu was given the list of authority relied upon for making the impugned order as stated in the grounds of detention to enable the detenu to make an effective representation to the Advisory Board as well as to the detaining authority failed to supply legible copy of the relevant document to the detenu which is given at page 195 of the compilation, which affected the detenu's important right of making an effective representation under Art. 22(5) of the Constitution of India and, therefore, the order of detention is required to be quashed and set aside. He showed a xerox copy of the document supplied at page 195 of the compilation. On perusing the document, it appears that the document at page 195 is the receipt issued by 'Gujarat Rajya Nagrik Purvatha Nigam Ltd.', which is a vital document on which reliance is placed by the detaining authority. Looking to the document, it appears that it is illegible and the name of the payer on which the rubber stamp is applied and the contents of the said rubber stamp are not legible. Mr. Tripathi appearing on behalf of the detaining authority drew our attention to the affidavit filed on the aforesaid point, which is set out at para 12 of the affidavit-in-reply, the relevant part of which reads as under :